Not all small turbo engines are more fuel-efficient says Consumer Reports

Consumer Reports isn't letting up on its testing of fuel efficiency claims for various vehicles. According to the publication, small turbocharged engines aren't delivering on the fuel efficiency claims by the manufacturers.

Small displacement turbocharged engines have become common in a variety of vehicles in place of larger displacement, naturally aspirated engines. The claim by the automotive manufacturers is that the small displacement turbocharged engines offer the same power as larger displacement engines and improved fuel efficiency.

Consumer Reports, however, states that in its real world testing many vehicles with turbocharged engines aren't as efficient as the manufacturers claim. The publication recently tested the 1.6-liter EcoBoost in a Ford Fusion and found that the turbocharged version has a slower 0-to-60 mph time than its competitors and achieved only 25 mpg in testing, making it among the worst for fuel efficiency in the recent crop of family sedans.

The publication also claims that the larger 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder, which promises the power of the V-6 with the fuel economy of four-cylinder engine, fails to deliver on either front.

2013 Ford Fusion

Chevrolet is also under fire for the 1.4-liter turbo four-cylinder in the Cruze. Consumer Reports claims that real world performance wasn’t much better than the standard, naturally aspirated 1.8-liter engine and overall fuel economy was similar as well.

Ford and General Motors representatives offered similar statements explaining the discrepancy. "When you have an EcoBoost engine, you have the opportunity to have performance and fuel economy, but not at the same time,” said Ford Powertrain Communications Manager Richard Truett. “EcoBoost adds a dimension that you won't get by just making the engine smaller. We're telling the driver, it's up to you on how you want to drive."

"The Cruze turbocharged engine provides a much broader torque curve than a non-turbocharged engine, and that means better acceleration across the rpm range, making for a more fun-to-drive car,” said GM spokesman Tom Read. “However, if you have a heavy foot on a turbocharged engine, you're not necessarily going to see a lot of fuel economy benefits."

The EPA is going to investigate Ford after Consumer Reports and other owners have complained that fuel efficiency doesn't meet the automakers claims in the Fusion Hybrid and C-MAX.

quote: No, the EPA doesn't actually do any testing except for rare instances. What they do is come up with the procedure for testing, that all manufacturers are supposed to follow. The automaker then test the car to the EPA procedure and then submits the results to the EPA.

I think I've found the problem :) What's the point of having the manufacturers claim fuel usage figures? As if they're not going to lie to make their cars appear more fuel efficient. That's almost as bad as believing the "official" US statistics of civilian casualties from its war on terror.

quote: What's the point of having the manufacturers claim fuel usage figures? As if they're not going to lie to make their cars appear more fuel efficient.

Several fold.

First off, the government can't do anything efficiently and timely. Do you honestly want them testing every car? That's our tax money at work, and to be honest, it would be wasted.

Secondly, you claim that if someone is in control of the results, they'll intentionally file false ones. That logic is flawed. By the same metric, everyone who files their taxes lies to get a better refund.

What you do is establish a list of rules, and punishments for breaking those rules. That's how the law works. No, I'm not being an idealist, but this is how society works.

And if you worked in the industry, you'd find that this is the norm. When creating a new jet, the Air Force doesn't test, they monitor the test being done by the builder (eg, Lockheed). The Air Force comes up with the requirements, and it's up for the manufacturer to meet those requirements. So they are tested, and the results submitted or demonstrated. Meeting those goals are also a requirement for payment. A super gross over simplification, but you get the idea.